Candace Kehrer, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Correctional Medical Services, and Robert Capowski, Defendants/Respondents.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Candace Kehrer, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Correctional Medical Services, and Robert Capowski, Defendants/Respondents. Case Number: ED85256 Handdown Date: 03/08/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Audrain County, Hon. Keith M. Sutherland Counsel for Appellant: Henry W. Cummings Counsel for Respondent: Denise L. Thomas and Peter J. Dunne Opinion Summary: Candace Kehrer appeals from an order dismissing her cause of action. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Because the order is not denominated a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: George W. Draper III, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and Norton, JJ., concur. Opinion: Candace Kehrer (Appellant), an inmate incarcerated with the Missouri Department of Corrections, filed a petition against Correctional Medical Services and Robert Capowski (Respondents) for injuries she allegedly suffered after being administered incorrect medication. She further sought class certification for other prisoners similarly situated. Both Respondents filed motions to dismiss the petition and opposition to class certification. The trial court entered an order granting both motions to dismiss. Appellant appeals to this Court. Because the order is not denominated a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Carroll v. Weinstein , 138 S.W.3d 744, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it should be dismissed. Id. A prerequisite to an appeal is that there be a final "judgment." In a civil case, Rule 74.01(a) mandates that a trial court expressly denominate its final ruling as a "judgment" to be appealable. Peet v. Randolph , 103 S.W.3d 872, 875 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). In designating the writing a "judgment," it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, the order dismissing Appellant's petition is not denominated a judgment. We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed and providing her with an opportunity to obtain a "judgment" from the trial court. However, Appellant has not filed a "judgment" nor has she filed a response to the order to show cause. Without a document denominated "judgment," there is no final, appealable judgment. SLJ v. RJ , 101 S.W.3d 339, 340 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). The requirement that a trial court must denominate its final ruling as a "judgment" is not a mere formality, but rather establishes a bright line test as to when a writing is a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes , 950 S.W.2d at 853. Unless the order dismissing Appellant's petition is denominated a judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). (FN1) We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Footnotes: FN1. In addition, in appeals from interlocutory orders granting or denying class certification, an appellant can seek leave of court to appeal under section 512.020(3), RSMo Supp. 2004. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.